> As a software engineer, I wish there were an equivalent firm in the industry that did teardowns like this so that we could, as an industry, improve over time the way that the automotive industry does.

I think this thread is a good indicator of why that might never happen. People in software will argue with whatever stuff they can and try to refute a review/teardown - reviewer doesn't understand the design consideration, reviewer don't have numbers, the stuff is revolutionary etc etc.

>As a software engineer, I wish there were an equivalent firm in the industry that did teardowns like this so that we could, as an industry, improve over time the way that the automotive industry does.

There are quite a lot of security companies that reverse engineer other software products and publish their findings. It would be good to see that for non-security stuff too.

Do you want your bosses going to a firm like Monroe.

Because companies will occasionally send in their own product to see if they can squeeze their manufacturers and see what their engineers missed.

Yes, honestly, I do. I would absolutely appreciate detailed and specific feedback across all of my work.

How else are we expected to improve? Even when it's thing subject to opinion, I'd like to hear those other opinions.

I feel like you get a flavor of this for software by reading the mailing lists in the more mature open source project, you can basically get a continuous flow of analysis and build or rebuild. It's not packaged in a nice episodic report form, but you can get a little of that too with some projects.

For the software industry as a whole, the closest thing might be the SEI[1], but that body of work takes some effort to work through, perhaps suffering a bit from a more adademic roots vs a more industry engineering info exchange approach like M&A. For that you might have specialist areas, for example, the Jepsen tests and blog[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Engineering_Institute [2] https://aphyr.com/tags/Jepsen

No they are not. Car companies do not go to Munro, period.

There are far more reputable sources, speaking from someone in the industry. Munro is just trying to get free advertising with this sh*t.

That's interesting. Which sources are in your view more reputable? Where do you work? One of the big three or a Japanese carmaker?

Car companies do not go to Munro, period.

Really? So where do they get their income?

The comment below has some questions for you. This is all information you would have provided if you actually knew what you were talking about. The fact that you didn't leads me to think you are a troller who just likes to say things that make people angry.

> Car companies do not go to Munro, period.

I don't know if you're trolling or what, but the truth is interesting. None of the US domestic automakers buy reports from Munro. They sell information to Japanese, Korean, Chinese and European automakers.